As someone who lives outside Lagos, Nigeria, yet remains deeply tied to its rhythms, and who resides inside Johannesburg, South Africa, yet often feels like an outsider, two events this past week struck me deeply.
- In Sandton, Johannesburg, an early morning fire drill unfolded — orderly, structured, proactive.
- In Lagos, a devastating fire disaster at Afriland Towers claimed lives, including staff of United Bank for Africa (UBA). The tragedy was so profound that Tony Elumelu, UBA chairman, cut short his trip to the UN General Assembly to return home.
Placed side by side, these events are not just stories of fire. They are stories of mindsets. One reflects preparation, foresight, and prevention. The other reflects loss, heartbreak, and systems that acted only when tragedy had already struck.
This contrast opens a vital conversation through the lens of behavioural science: what differentiates proactive from reactive cultures, and why does it matter for individuals, organisations, and societies?
Through behavioural science lenses
Behavioural science teaches us that human beings and organisations often struggle with prevention bias — the tendency to undervalue proactive measures because their benefits are invisible. When nothing goes wrong, preparation can feel unnecessary or wasteful.
- The psychology of proactivity
Proactivity involves foresight, planning, and embedding habits before a crisis arises. It requires individuals and groups to overcome present bias (favouring immediate comfort over future security) and cultivate future-oriented thinking.
- Fire drills, for example, might seem inconvenient at the moment. But they create muscle memory — patterns of behaviour that become automatic under stress.
- This aligns with theories of automaticity: the more we rehearse, the more our responses bypass panic and become second nature.
- The trap of reactivity
Reactivity is often born out of optimism bias (“It won’t happen to us”), systemic neglect, or the human tendency to prioritise short-term gains over long-term resilience.
- In organisations, this can manifest as poor safety infrastructure, delayed maintenance, or lack of training.
- In communities, it reflects weak enforcement of building codes, limited trust in institutions, and absence of collective rehearsal for emergencies.
- The social dimension
Preparedness is not just individual. It’s deeply social. Collective efficacy — a group’s shared belief in its capacity to act together — shapes whether communities invest in drills, early-warning systems, or emergency responses. Where trust in systems is high, proactivity thrives. Where trust is low, action often comes too late.
Case one: Sandton’s fire drill
In Sandton, the fire drill was preventive. It was not triggered by flames but by foresight. Employees walked calmly down stairwells, gathering in safe zones. Emergency personnel observed and noted gaps for improvement.
This drill reflects a culture of anticipatory governance — systems designed to think ahead. It shows the importance of embedding institutional habits: repeated rehearsals that prime individuals to respond effectively in real crises.
Case two: Lagos’ Afriland Towers fire
In Lagos, tragedy struck. Flames engulfed Afriland Towers, and lives were lost. What makes this painful is not only the human toll but the recognition that disasters often reveal the cost of unpreparedness.
Behavioural science reminds us that societies without regular drills or strict adherence to safety codes often rely on reactive heroism — bravery after the fact — rather than preventive discipline. While human courage is admirable, it should never substitute for systems that could have saved lives before the flames spread.
The differentiator: Proactive vs. Reactive
The difference between Sandton and Lagos last week is not just geographical. It is psychological and cultural.
- Proactive systems create a feedback loop of safety, trust, and resilience. They reduce loss not because crises don’t occur, but because responses are pre-learned, automatic, and collective.
- Reactive systems often reveal cracks in governance, infrastructure, and communication. They rely on improvisation in the face of chaos, where every second of hesitation costs lives.
Reflections from practice: Wound care as a parallel
After I shared my initial reflections on LinkedIn, Liezl Naude, wound management specialist and educator, offered this insight:
“Proactively so much better! In wound care we say prevention is better than cure.”
Her words capture a universal truth. Whether in health care or disaster management, proactive habits reduce harm long before it becomes irreversible. Just as clinicians stress prevention in wound care — through hygiene, early intervention, and patient education — societies must stress prevention in safety culture, policy, and training.
This cross-domain resonance illustrates that preparedness is not sector-specific. It is a universal principle of resilience.
Reflections
Preparedness is more than a technical checklist — it is a mindset and a culture. It requires shifting from the psychology of denial (“it won’t happen here”) to the psychology of foresight (“when, not if”).
Consider the behavioural science principles at stake:
- Repetition builds resilience: Regular drills transform fear into familiarity.
- Future orientation trumps present bias: Choosing inconvenience today prevents devastation tomorrow.
- Collective efficacy matters: Communities that trust and train together respond faster and more effectively in crises.
Call to action!
The lesson is clear: societies and organisations thrive not by waiting for crisis, but by cultivating preparedness as a cultural muscle. The question is not whether emergencies will come — they will. The real question is: how prepared are we when they do?
